masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Ming
Just wanted to point out that, as the other system in the cluster is the Han system, the reference to the Ming Dynasty is more likely to be correct than the reference to the Flash Gordon character. Unless of course, that means the Han system is named after Han Solo... lol. Nevertheless, the Flash Gordon reference theory is not without some merit, so unless a writer from BioWare actually says one way or the other, I'm okay with it. SpartHawg948 00:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) : Nope, i think that branches to far into speculation territory, especially since both star systems in the cluster seem to be named after ancient dynasties, of course they could both be named after sci fi characters. It could also be both, using valid names that also were used in sci fi. I would like to beleive that bioware is clever enough to give these systems double meanings, but I also think speculation should be kept at a minimum. ralok 20:34, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::It's exactly as speculative as stating that the system is named after the Ming dynasty. No more, no less. We have exactly the same amount of hard evidence about both. As I state above, Ming the character is a prominent character from a prominent scifi series. Long story short, as this is exactly as speculative as the other assumptions about system (and planet) names, we would have to pretty much axe them all. SpartHawg948 20:37, December 28, 2009 (UTC) But there is only two systems in the cluster, both share names with ancient chinese dynasties. If they were named after han and ming from there respective science fiction universes then there would be less connection. At least thats how i feel about it, so i will be happy with it as long as there is a reference to han solo on the han page im checking right now . . . ok there isnt. ralok 20:44, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :And there is the speculation! We don't know that Han and Ming are named after the Han and Ming Dynasties. Where is the source? Please show it to me. Stating that both systems are named after ancient Chinese dynasties with no source is, of course, speculation. Didn't you just say you "think speculation should be kept at a minimum"? SpartHawg948 20:54, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::(edit conflict × 4) In this specific case, I'd have to agree with ralok: the Flash Gordon theory is far less plausible than the Chinese dynasty theory, which – contrary to your assertion – is externally supported by the name of its sibling, the Han system. In any case it comes down to a matter of opinion and, as you rightly point out, we have traditionally tended to permit speculation on system names — a practice which, if outlawed, would make these pages even more dull than they already are. In passing I should add that over time I have found the enforcement of this speculation business to be rather uneven in general and lacking in politesse on the whole. Bluster, ridicule, and suggesting that a contributor read the entire talk and history logs of a given page is not terribly productive — and for pages with many edits, unreasonable. --DRY 21:02, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::I never said the name wasn't supported by the other system name, I just stated that they both lack any substantive evidence that isn't also based on speculation. As I stated above, I felt there to be at least a little merit in the Ming the Merciless theory, which is why I didn't delete it when it popped ip originally. As you state, we do allow this type of stuff in planet and system names, which is why I left it. Admins frequently suggest people peruse the talk pages and histories because the aforementioned sources do tend to cover the issue in question most of the time, rendering it somewhat less "unreasonable". So, as we do allow this stuff in the context of planet and system names, I don't see the need to make a special exception for this one bit of speculation. SpartHawg948 21:08, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::: That's what I intended to imply: there is space for both opinions; it is for the contributors to decide which (if any) is the more convincing. (As a corollary, contributors are also free to delete material if they so wish, and others are free to add it back in again.) That, to my mind, should be the guiding principle for the vast majority of the speculation: let the community decide what it wants in its wiki. (BTW, does this mean I can add The Fifth Element back to the Sharblu page now? Even if it is fluff, it beats the heck out of a discussion about the Rayleigh scattering effect… ) --DRY 21:28, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::::Indeed. I still believe it's bupkiss, but as you have done a phenomenal job pointing out, I can't really support Ming and not support the Fifth Element one, can I? It's gotta be all or nothing. And while I may be many things, I'm no hypocrite. So indeed, please add the Fifth Element note back to Sharblu! If anyone removes it, they'll have to answer to me! :) SpartHawg948 21:34, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::::: Dont do that, that peice of fluff and speculation is WAAAAAAAY out there. The fifth element alien dont look asair aside from color, and i am pretty sure her name isnt sharblu. ralok 21:58, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::::::: I disagree. However, you're missing the point I was actually trying to make: a heavy handed editorial policy would make the otherwise very dull cluster, system, and planet pages even less interesting. The vast majority of suggestions are in good faith, and should be treated as such. --DRY 22:12, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::It's back in now, and I have officially withdrawn my objections (for all that is worth). Do with it what you will. SpartHawg948 23:08, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :: Therefore i request equal speculation in both the han and mindd articles on this website. ralok 21:02, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::: Whoah DRY you just snuck up there, personally i think speculation on the names on systems planets and such should be kept to speculating it was named after real world stuff, that doesnt make much sense but there is no proof that the star wars or flash gordon universe exsist within the mass effect universe, nor is there proof that the ancient dynasties exsisted, but it is far more likely these systems are named after real world place rather than fictional characters. I suggest that become part of the speculation policy that speculation be confined to none fiction. That makes no sense, i am very poor at trying to make a point. ralok 21:07, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::No Star Wars? You haven't looked at the Ilos trivia section, have you? There's a SW planet names Ilos and the last bit of the map is the "Trench Run". There are also several Star Trek references scattered throughout the game, and those would have to go as well, I suppose. Not to mention the Battlestar Galactica references, the 2001: A Space Odyssey references, and many other references to fictional work. We'd have to get rid of all of those. As for being no proof that there is no Star Wars or Flash Gordon in Mass Effect, given that the point-of-departure is in the future, and that there has been no evidence that the Earth of Mass Effect is not the Earth we know, it would actually be necessary to provide proof that Star Wars and Flash Gordon do not exist, as there is no reason to assume they do not, given what we know. SpartHawg948 21:12, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :: Well certainly there are references to star wars, but i feel that when it comes to names you have to realize that someone in the actualy mass effect universe named that object, so unless you have proof that its named after a fictional element that may or may not exsist in the mass effect universe you have to go with the historical speculation. ralok 21:54, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::So what about Gorgon, or Cacus, Antaeus, Dis, Farinata, Plutus, or any of the other countless planet and system names derived from fiction? Even though there is absolutely no proof that any of the history of Earth is any different up to the known point-of-departure (an argument I note ralok did not dispute), they are fictional, and if we follow ralok's logic, we have no proof that the fictional elements they share their name with exist in the Mass Effect universe. For that matter, if we follow ralok's logic, we have no proof that the Han or Ming dynasties existed on Earth in the Mass Effect universe either. No, it's quite simple. The point-of-departure (even assuming this is to be treated as an alternate history) occurs long after all these fictional elements (including Star Wars and Flash Gordon) were created. Attempts to argue such a case are no more than red herring. SpartHawg948 23:06, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::::: THIS is getting waaaaaay out of hand. ralok 22:00, December 28, 2009 (UTC) Lets get real folks, ming the merciless is a character from flash gordon, when he was created he was essentially a racist character, created in an era where such things would be accepted as normal, the name ming was probably chosen because it sounded asian. Ming is a solar system in mass effect, not to far from the solar system han. Both systems have names in common with chinese dynasties. So in the end both systems support hte name of each other as historical reference, so speculation should lean in that direction. Unless of course ming the merciless had some sort of assosiation with a character called han. ralok 23:19, December 28, 2009 (UTC) : Why not leave it up to the reader to decide? Trust your audience. --DRY 23:22, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::: I am the reader, i come here to read articles, i change and complain based on what i see. Why am i invalid as a reader, somehow am i rendered invalid as a reader because i complain about random speculation. With that logic everyone who complains is no longer a readder, therfore you never get any complaints. GAAAAAH im overanalyzing this arent I ralok 23:29, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::: You are, however, not the only reader. And in this instance, you are also a contributor — or more accurately a censor. Both roles can be embodied in a single entity. --DRY 23:36, December 28, 2009 (UTC)